Seize marijuana market from criminal class

The Free Lance-Star (Fredericksburg, VA) ^ | 2/9/2003 | Kevin B. Zeese

[MrLeRoy]

WASHINGTON--A friend recently remarked to me, "Alcohol is the original date-rape drug." That's very sadly true. And it's why I found it hypocritical that the national drug czar's new ad equating marijuana use with teen pregnancy should debut during the Super Bowl, in which beer and sex were the dominant advertising themes.

Teen drinking is the bigger problem, both in sheer numbers as well as health risks, yet the federal agency overseeing drug-control policy ignores it. An antiteen drinking commercial would have been a powerful counterpoint during that game; the antipot ad came off as a clumsy attempt to maintain beer's market share.

These ads are emblematic of the government's overall war on marijuana. Since marijuana was first federally outlawed in 1937, prohibition has had the perverse effect of making marijuana more popular, particularly among youth and the counterculture. Our government insists on staying the course even though there is no evidence that criminalizing marijuana has ever reduced its use, let alone its trafficking. Meanwhile, the focus on marijuana diverts attention away from more serious problems.

Historian Barbara Tuchman once defined folly in government as the perverse persistence in bad policy in spite of evidence of its failure and the existence of a reasonable alternative.

Marijuana prohibition is a clear example of this. Reports by governmental commissions in several countries point out its failure and call for drastic changes, from decriminalization (for example, the Shafer Commission in 1972) to legalization (a Canadian Senate committee report in 2002). So many of our political leaders have tried marijuana that it becomes news if a politician ever denies any "youthful indiscretions." And yet, still prohibition persists. Why?

Some argue that marijuana is a dangerous drug so it must be banned. Yet we've decided that the dangers of alcohol and tobacco present an acceptable risk, so let's compare:

Alcohol overdoses kill more than 15,000 people each year in the United States, and alcohol-related deaths push the toll up to more than 100,000 annually; marijuana, according to the scientific evidence, has not racked up a single overdose death in centuries of use.

Alcohol use is involved in 40 percent of the violent crimes committed in the United States annually; marijuana is associated with meditative, peaceful behavior, while violence in the marijuana trade is the result of prohibition, not the drug.

Tobacco use is credited with more than 400,000 deaths annually, according to the Surgeon General; in spite of decades of trying, the federal government has still not found anyone dying from marijuana use.

Clearly, marijuana prohibition is not justified by health concerns.

Prohibitionists say we don't need to legalize yet another drug because the ones we have do too much damage. That argument misses the point in many ways.

First, marijuana is widely used, legal or not. At least 21 million people used it last year, according to the federal Household Survey. (The real number is much higher, possibly 40 million; government surveys of illegal behavior are not noted for their accuracy and are widely believed to underreport the true totals.)

More important, marijuana is not simply another substance, it's a less dangerous--not safe, but less dangerous--alternative to drugs we already make available. And, if regulated as we do with alcohol, there would be guarantees of marijuana purity as well as regulation of potency, something the illegal market does not provide.

Prohibitionists counter: Ending marijuana prohibition "sends the wrong message" that legalizing drugs supposedly connotes societal approval of drug abuse. Oh, really? Then we need to bring back alcohol prohibition because, by that logic, legal alcohol sends the message that alcoholism and alcohol abuse are OK. Obviously, that's not true. And we're not going back to alcohol prohibition. We need to turn in a different direction.

It makes no sense to continue threatening people with arrest over their simple use of marijuana. A regulated system takes control of the marijuana market away from the criminals. This means age limits, just as we have for alcohol--drug dealers never ask for ID.

As for the "gateway" theory? Research shows that alcohol and tobacco are more likely suspects than marijuana. A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that early alcohol and tobacco use were strong indicators of later drug use. That study's authors contended that the link between marijuana and other illegal drugs may be due solely to marijuana's illegality, nothing more.

A regulated marijuana market--similar to alcohol but a little more restricted (no Super Bowl marijuana promotions, for example)--is workable. And selling U.S.-grown marijuana through state-run outlets similar to Virginia's ABC stores could bring in millions in tax revenue to states and the federal government.

So why does prohibition persist? As Tuchman put it in her book "The March of Folly": "Wooden-headedness, the source of self-deception, is a factor that plays a remarkably large role in government. It consists in assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs. It is acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts."

Seventy years ago, we ended the tragic mistake that was alcohol prohibition. The time has now come to end the folly of marijuana prohibition.

[CWOJackson]

Is that the best you can do?

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

"A friend recently remarked to me, "Alcohol is the original date-rape drug." That's very sadly true. And it's why I found it hypocritical that the national drug czar's new ad equating marijuana use with teen pregnancy should debut during the Super Bowl, in which beer and sex were the dominant advertising themes."


Sorry, your point is much too logical for me. I would rather hide behind my adolescent lessons and images of pre-conceived notions.

When it comes to depriving mothers and children of needed assistance, I will use logic. When it comes to honestly examining the virtues and evils of the War on Drugs, I will not. Nancy Said "DRUGS ARE BAD MMMMKAY"

/sarcasm off

The level of intellectual dishonesty amongst my fellow conservatives is a tragedy.

[CWOJackson]

Atleast clymer1797 added WOD before it.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Troll.

[CWOJackson]

No wonder you're a ghost Ernie.

[clamper1797]

That's all the reply you're worth ... you have not added one thing to this thread or any other WOD thread I've ever seen you on other than name calling. That Sir is the classic
definition of a TROLL. If you're really a CWO you should have a lot more intelligence than that. If you just tried to add something to the dicussion other than troll bait, you might even gain a little respect from this ex-naval officer, no-doper anti-WOsD conservative. Right now you don't warrant it

[MrLeRoy]

The level of intellectual dishonesty amongst my fellow conservatives is a tragedy.

Indeed. The WODdies' imperviousness to facts and logic is a textbook example of Orwell's "crimestop."

[Hemingway's Ghost]

You've got a problem with onanism, troll.

[CyberSpartacus]

To all you drug warriors. What is the difference between jailing someone for peacefully smoking pot, and jailing them for peacefully having a gun? Your arguments will allways fail, and for one simple reason. Just like the filthy Democraps, you think it is your God given right to tell other people what to do. Until you get over your self-righteous arrogance this country has NO CHANCE of ever returning to a FREE REPUBLIC.

[CWOJackson]

I don't add anything to a WOD thread?

There's nothing to add...they are as irrelevent as France. Perhaps you haven't notice, but you folks have been posting the same old tired crap every day for years now and absolutely nothing has changed...except in Canada.

As for gaining respect from you...LOL! No wonder you're an ex...you aren't worthy of anything more.

[-YYZ-]

"Little secret about pot, though: If you have a sex drive prepare to have it magnified. Pot magnifies alot of things, especially when you are a chronic user working the happy-happy tip (before Mary J drags you down-down into depression...oh, it magnifies that too!)."


What the heck does this mean? Happy-happy tip? Have you been getting writing tips from f. Christian (if you're not familiar, check out any creation/evolution thread).

[William Terrell]

I don't see that legalizing it will "cause at a lesser degree what it is causing now". I see it creating more problems. I do think however that the sentences for pot should be lowered for the casual user. I also believe that doctors should be able to prescribe it.

Now, any appearance of cannabis is abuse. Any use of it is criminal. Tobacco, as in your example, may be discouraged using overpricing and demonization, but its use is legal, and no criminal charges can be levied against those who use it.

The restraints against tobacco are nothing to the current restraints against cannabis. So, making cannabis legal, and placing an extrordinately high tax on it (which causes smuggling-but a high tax doesn't have to be placed on it) could cause some degree of criminal activity, the criminal activity doesn't approach that of it being illegal, and is therefore would be less if it is legalized.

[KEVLAR]

So other than annoying others here, what is your purpose?

[CWOJackson]

Actually in the Pacific Northwest the cost of BC Bud has gone up dramatically; a consequence of the war on terror.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Nice post. However, CWOJackson has such a hard-on for being a bad-ass it probably went way over his head.

[CWOJackson]

Actually I'm just a volunteer. We take turns coming on to your threads so that they aren't so boring. If none of us show up you're thread die of boredom very quickly and there's no entertainment value in that.

If one of us shows up then you can trot out the prohibition examples, the standard "what's the difference..." arguments, etc. It makes the thread more lively, albeit still very predictable, but far more entertaining.

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

I think one of the most heart-breaking things I see amongst alleged fellow conservatives, is the constant reliance on existing evils to justify their failed arguments.

For example, the "tobacco is almost illegal" argument. The fact that there can be a "sin" tax by the federal government is a crime.

The concept that Tobacco and Alcohol are LEGAL, and much much more damaging and unhealthy than marijuana, is beyond argument, and the intellectual dishonesty of the distinction is blatant.

The fact that you even need a "prescription" for medication in order to comply with "federal regulation/law" of medicine is gut-wrenching.

The Patriot Act? What an ironic name.

We sit around, fat and lazy, giving our freedoms away at an increasing rate. We spit on the graves of our fallen fathers, we wipe our collective hindparts with the Constitution, as we sit here and let freedom after freedom slip through our fingers.

[avenir]

You want "evidence" that pot makes you horny?

Read my tagline. Or, better yet, go smoke a bowl and find out for yersef!

[MEGoody]

"Since marijuana was first federally outlawed in 1937, prohibition has had the perverse effect of making marijuana more popular"

There are more rapes and murders than there used to be too. Should we make those acts legal? Just because society is slidding downhill morally doesn't mean we should do away with all laws.